AuthorTopic: The corruption of congress (Read 5137 times)

Some of the comments seem to indicate that the 2 core points of the author have been misunderstood.

According to him the issues is that- US electors can only vote in people who have been pre-selected by a bunch of a hundred powerful influencers,- The lobbying carreers awaiting politicians after retirement further corrupt the system.

He is also outlining reasonnable non partisan approaches to kill the current vicious circle. Non partisan meaning that Democrats would benefit just as much as Republicans from this.

It is really about giving back the control of the congress to the citizens.

Sorry, Bernard, but "the 2 core points" are simply an example of intellectual BS. You can prove almost anything under the sun if you cherry-pick your facts and rearrange them conveniently. The lefties seem to have this romantic notion of what politics is, and how the world works (or, rather, how it should work).

As I said earlier in the thread, politics is (mostly) a brutal game (war) of crude interests, not of noble ideals. This is how the world works (and not just in the US).

As for crowd-funding, proposed as a solution, isn't it exactly how Barack Obama won the first election? By getting an extraordinary number of less-than-$200 contributions? There are also numerous examples on city, state and national level of candidates who won in spite of being underfunded (compared to their rivals). Had this not been true, all elections would have been won simply by comparing the size of election coffers.

There are candidates who fell out of favor of both parties, ran as independent, and won (Senator Lieberman, for instance).

Probably most facts the guy used are correct, but the real question is: so what? It is just stating the obvious. The obvious being: that is how the world works - incentives and interests. It is a two-way street: those interests ("funders") are looking for candidates to represent them, not just the other way round. Those candidates who do not want to "sell" themselves to the big funders, can (and did, like Obama) ask for small donations from a larger number of funders.

In other words, nothing new here (nor exclusive to the U.S.), just another example of how Little Johnny (read: romantic lefties) imagines the world of grown-up politics should look like.

Politics is simply the management of that world and keeping a veneer of civility and mutual understanding present.

Where it breaks down is where it is new: Arab Springs spring to mind: nobody there seems really to understand what it's about - politics - and confuses it with some magical Open Sesame that brings everyone all that they want, all at once, and exclusively for their own tribal loyalties.

Probably most facts the guy used are correct, but the real question is: so what? It is just stating the obvious. The obvious being: that is how the world works - incentives and interests. It is a two-way street: those interests ("funders") are looking for candidates to represent them, not just the other way round. Those candidates who do not want to "sell" themselves to the big funders, can (and did, like Obama) ask for small donations from a larger number of funders.

In other words, nothing new here (nor exclusive to the U.S.), just another example of how Little Johnny (read: romantic lefties) imagines the world of grown-up politics should look like.

It's only ever a matter of degree, though, isn't it? Sure, self-interest is always present, there's no utopia, but that is also stating the obvious. But once every last politician is bought and paid for by every snake oil salesman so that the very idea of public interest or common good is farce, or even if people just think it and stop voting, say, then where are you? Is that a society worth caring about? Of course there's a difference between what is and what should be. Too much cynicism serves no purpose in the long run.

It's only ever a matter of degree, though, isn't it? Sure, self-interest is always present, there's no utopia, but that is also stating the obvious. But once every last politician is bought and paid for by every snake oil salesman so that the very idea of public interest or common good is farce, or even if people just think it and stop voting, say, then where are you? Is that a society worth caring about? Of course there's a difference between what is and what should be. Too much cynicism serves no purpose in the long run.

Which is a shame for those people. I have never been cynical - but I am realistic. Too many people either expect politicians to be purer than white, or condemn them all as charlatans. I have several thought on politicians, admittedly from a UK perspective. First, anyone seeking power should have their motives suspected. Secondly, most politicians at least start out with the best of intentions. Thirdly, they all tell lies when they need to. And lastly, I don't expect them to be infallible and superhuman. Never been disappointed yet.

The French did it in 1789... but they didn't have flat screen TVs, the full collection of Desperate House Wives in 3D and D800Es to lose...

Cheers,Bernard

Yep, and hated the Brits ever since for not doing the same and thus owning a tourist attraction more powerful than the Eiffel Tower.

Regicide is ilke chopping off one's own head: the rest just flops about until it's all leaked away. Order and sequence are essential in anything but a circle (or sphere, if your imagination is up to the challenge - mine isn't, which is why I 'work' within two dimensions).

Regicide is ilke chopping off one's own head: the rest just flops about until it's all leaked away. Order and sequence are essential in anything but a circle (or sphere, if your imagination is up to the challenge - mine isn't, which is why I 'work' within two dimensions).